The garnishment of property to enforce a writ of execution operates as an attachment, creating a lien that places the property under the jurisdiction of the court that issued the writ. As a result, the property is placed in custodia legis, under the exclusive control of the court.
Pursuant to Section 9(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of money may be enforced against the salaries of employees, and as held in Bagbagen v. Perez (G.R. No. 274980, 17 February 2025), this includes the salaries of public officials. They may be garnished once deposited into their bank accounts, because they cease to be public funds, and do not fall under those exempted from execution under Section 13, Rule 39, Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court further explained in Bagbagen that the provision exempting salaries under Section 13(i) should be read in conjunction with Article 1708 of the Civil Code, in that it is meant to favor only laboring men or women whose works are manual, and not public officials. Those subject to the exemption usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than the public officials. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that there is no law exempting the salaries of public officials from garnishment, whereas Article 1708 of the Civil Code grants such exemption to the salaries of laborers.